Disproportionate Assets: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Abetment Case Against Former Congress MLA R Seetharam

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the proceedings initiated against former legislator and Educationist, MR Seetharam under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the IPC.

He is charged in connection with a disproportionate assets case involving TN Chikkarayappa, former Managing Director at the Cauvery Neeravari Nigam.

Seetharam, in the capacity of President of MS Ramaiah Education Society, had signed off Rs. 50 lakh interest free education loan in favour of Chikkarayappa's daughter. When the Lokayukta sought details of the transaction, it was informed that the Society had become defunct and therefore, no records could be traced. Following this the Lokayukta completed its investigation and filed a charge sheet against five persons, naming Seetharam as an accused.

In the instant case, Seetharam had challenged the order of Special Court taking cognizance.

Dismissing his plea, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “What is alleged against the petitioner is an offence under Section 109 of the IPC for abetment. The contents of the allegation are amassing of wealth by accused No.1. The reply submitted by the petitioner or the contentions advanced in the petition would all necessarily require a trial.”

Seetharam contended that it is the Society that was responsible for issuance of cheque in favour of Chikkarayappa's daughter and no fault can be found with him merely because he had signed the cheque.

Disagreeing, the Court said prima facie ingredients of Section 109 IPC point at Seetharam. It observed,

"The Police after investigation file a charge sheet, when the evasive replies were given by the Society, of which, the petitioner is/was the President. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Society is an independent entity; it has now become defunct and all these actions are attributable to the Society and not to the petitioner as an individual would all require evidence before the concerned Court.”

Court no satisfactory answer was furnished explaning how an amount of 50 lakhs was routed and why the interest free loan was granted only to Chikkarayappa's daughter as a special case. "All this would be in the realm of disputed questions of fact.”

Placing reliance on the Apex court judgement in Kaptan Singh v. State of UP (2021), the court said “In a given case, if such a case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact, this Court would not interfere in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”

The court also rejected Seetharam's contention that the order taking cognizance by the Special Judge suffers from non-application of mind.

Accordingly the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: M R Seetharam And State By Anti Corruption Bureau & others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7524 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 242

Date of Order: 26-06-2023

Appearance: Advocate P Prasanna Kumar for petitioner.

Special Public Prosecutor B.B.Patil for Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order